Mrs C Blanchard v Oulton Abbey Care Home — 2021

Mrs C Blanchard had worked at Oulton Abbey Care Home since 1 September 1989 and was employed as a Diversional Therapist. Her complaints of breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay and redundancy payment were withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal accepted that, after a CQC inspection and during the Covid-19 period, the respondent wanted to change its activities provision so that more activity took place in the afternoons and weekends, and that this led to a proposal to move the claimant into an Activities Co-ordinator role with different hours.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent's factual reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason within section 98 ERA 1996, namely the need to implement that change after the claimant said she could not work the proposed afternoon hours. However, it held under section 98(4) that the dismissal was unfair because the process was not reasonable: the claimant had no warning that dismissal would be discussed on 28 May 2020, received no written proposal or follow-up, was not given meaningful consultation on alternatives, and the dismissal letter of 6 July 2020 did not offer an appeal.

The tribunal rejected any suggestion of a hidden agenda and found that the respondent had not acted within the range of reasonable responses. It also made no Polkey reduction and no deduction for contributory fault, finding that the claimant's stance after the meeting was understandable in the context of the respondent's lack of clear communication. The basic award was calculated at £6,085.80 and the compensatory award at £11,927.73, producing a total award of £18,013.53; the tribunal also recorded that the ACAS Code did not apply so no uplift was made.